Utility-in-itself cannot exist because utility is a relation between need and object.

Evidence

The association (or even equation) of use-value and utility forecloses the possibility of inquiring into the concrete substance of ‘utility’ while necessitating the categorical establishment of a ‘utility-in-itself’. However, this latter kind of utility not only does not exist, but also cannot exist, for it contradicts what the concept of utility designates. This concept is constituted as a relation with two sides: a particular need and a particular quality of an object, which bears the title of use-object because of this quality. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1275

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies why utility is a two-sided relational concept, not a property of objects — grounding Marx’s own relational definition of use-value.
• XREF: connects to: Value arises from the for-itself’s constitutive lack — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1445; Value’s being consists precisely in not having being — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 367; Necessity cannot be derived from possibility because possibility is epistemic, not ontological.

Broader Connections

• Value’s being consists precisely in not having being #complicates (0.75) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 367
• Value arises from the for-itself’s constitutive lack #expands (0.72) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1445
• Necessity cannot be derived from possibility because possibility is epistemic, not ontological. #expands (0.72)